From the New York Times' "The Caucus" blog:

Several years ago, when Senate Democrats were using filibusters to block confirmation votes on several of President George W. Bush’s appeals court nominees, some conservatives decried the tactic as unconstitutional.

But now, a coalition of conservative group leaders and opinion leaders has signed a letter calling on Senate Republicans to filibuster President Obama’s Supreme Court choice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. A draft the letter was obtained by The New York Times.

“We request that you will lead 40 or more senators to participate in a great debate that highlights all the issues that come to the fore with a Supreme Court nomination,” says the letter, addressed to Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader from Kentucky.

The conservatives say their intent is not to kill the nomination, as Democrats used the tactic, but rather to provide for lengthier debate on its merits.

Read more...

Funny item from the Weekly Standard.

What does Sotomayor's record reveal about her environmental philosophy?

From Politico:

Obama: "I'm sure she would have restated it.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer: "She'll stand by the entire speech."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "It’s not the right thing, but I don’t think she meant it that way either."

Sen. Arlen Specter: "I think she meant that somebody with her experience has something to add."

Sen. Patrick Leahy: "...it would be ridiculous to think somebody's life experience doesn't affect them."

The latest video offering from Townhall's national political reporter, Jillian Bandes:

Turns out Sotomayor bought into the race argument that not letting felons vote was unfair to blacks and Hispanics.

From the Washington Times:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state's refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote. Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision. In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Read more...

The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel brilliantly discusses Obama's two big ground rules about debating Sotomayor and why they must be broken:

President Barack Obama has laid down his ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The big question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr. Obama nor his party have themselves followed.

Ground Rule No. 1, as decreed by the president, is that this is to be a discussion primarily about Judge Sotomayor's biography, not her qualifications. The media gurus complied, with inspiring stories of how she was born to Puerto Rican immigrants, how she was raised by a single mom in a Bronx housing project, how she went on to Princeton and then Yale. In the years that followed she presumably issued a judicial opinion here or there, but whatever. ...

Which brings us to Ground Rule No. 2, which is that Republicans are not allowed to criticize Judge Sotomayor, for the reason that she is the first Hispanic nominee to the High Court. The Beltway media also dutifully latched on to this White House talking point, reporting threats from leading Democrats, including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who intoned that Republicans "oppose her at their peril."

This would be the same Mr. Schumer who had this to say about Miguel Estrada . . .

Read it all.

From the Washington Post:

The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor's scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances that the Supreme Court nominee agrees with President Obama's belief in constitutional protections for a woman's right to the procedure.

Facing concerns about the issue from supporters rather than detractors, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama did not ask Sotomayor specifically about abortion rights during their interview. But Gibbs indicated that the White House is nonetheless sure she agrees with the constitutional underpinnings of Roe v. Wade . . .

More here.

From the New York Times:

In the 1980s, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund sued the New York City Police Department, claiming that its promotion exams discriminated against Latinos and African-Americans.

The fund, one of the advocacy groups pressing similar cases across the country, also helped redraw voting districts in the city that increased the number of Hispanic elected officials. The defense fund even sued a former Reagan administration official for defamation after he claimed that virtually all Puerto Ricans in New York received food stamps.

All those efforts were backed by the defense fund’s board of directors, an active and passionate group that included a young lawyer named Sonia Sotomayor, who this week was chosen by President Obama to join the country’s highest court.

Read it all...

Charles Krauthammer: Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

Read more...

In introducing his argument against Sotomayor's opponents who would dare to bring up race when they argue against the nominee's own race arguments, Olbermann repeatedly points out that Sotomayor is "hispanic" or "latina."

The race issue in the Sotomayor debate was not brought up by the Right--it was brought up by the Left and their unending focus on race/identity politics: Obama telegraphed to the world that he wanted to name a minority (especially a hispanic) and a woman to the court, because he believed the empathy they would bring to the High Court was necessary; and the nominee herself made race an issue when she degraded the judicial capacity of white males compared to latina women.

A nice summary by O'Reilly tonight on Race and Gender politics:

From "Special Report with Bret Baier" tonight:

This is on FoxNews.com:

Student Writings From 1970s Show Sotomayor Assailing Princeton for Discrimination

The Daily Princetonian has posted a series of Sonia Sotomayor-related letters and articles from the 1970s that show her interest early on in the issues of discrimination and minority representation.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor once accused Princeton University of attempting to "relegate" the Puerto Rican and Chicano population to "oblivion," according to a decades-old letter to the editor released by the university's newspaper.

The Daily Princetonian has posted a series of Sotomayor-related letters and articles from the 1970s that show her early interest in the issues of discrimination and minority representation as a student at the Ivy League school.

In one May 10, 1974, letter to the editor, Sotomayor -- whose parents are from Puerto Rico -- described and defended a student complaint against the university charging it with an "institutional pattern of discrimination."

Read more...